Neuroprivacy

Last updated

Neuroprivacy, or "brain privacy," is a concept which refers to the rights people have regarding the imaging, extraction and analysis of neural data from their brains. [1] This concept is highly related to fields like neuroethics, neurosecurity, and neurolaw, and has become increasingly relevant with the development and advancement of various neuroimaging technologies. Neuroprivacy is an aspect of neuroethics specifically regarding the use of neural information in legal cases, neuromarketing, surveillance and other external purposes, as well as corresponding social and ethical implications.

Contents

History

Neuroethical concepts such as neuroprivacy developed initially in the 2000s, after the initial invention and development of neuroimaging techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET), electroencephalography (EEG), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). [2] As neuroimaging became highly studied and popularized in the 1990s, it also started entering the commercial market as entrepreneurs sought to market the practical applications of neuroscience, such as neuromarketing, neuroenhancement and lie detection. Neuroprivacy consists of the privacy issues raised by both neuroscience research and applied uses of neuroimaging techniques. The relevance of neuroprivacy debate increased significantly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which led to a push for increased neuroimaging in the context of information/threat detection and surveillance. [3] [4]

Neuroanalysis techniques

Brain fingerprinting

Brain fingerprinting is a controversial and unproven EEG technique that relies on identifying the P300 event-related potential, [5] which is correlated with recognition of some stimulus. [6] The purpose of this technique is to determine if a person has incriminating information or memory. In its current state, brain fingerprinting is only able to determine the existence of information, and is unable to provide any specific details about that information. [7] Its creator, Dr. Lawrence Farwell, claims brain fingerprinting is highly reliable and nearly impossible to fool, [6] but some studies dispute its reliability and lack of countermeasures. [8] [9] Some possible countermeasures include thinking of something else instead of processing the real stimuli, mental suppression of recognition, or simply not cooperating with the test. [8] There have been concerns over the potential use of memory dampening drugs such as propranolol to beat brain fingerprinting. [10] However, some studies have shown that propranolol actually dampens the emotional arousal associated with a memory instead of the memory itself, which could even improve the recollection of the memory. [11]

A comparable EEG technique is brain electrical oscillation signature profiling (BEOS), which is very similar to brain fingerprinting in that it detects the presence of specific information or memories. Despite a significant lack of scientific studies confirming the validity of BEOS profiling, this technique has been used in India to provide evidence for criminal investigations. [9] [12]

Evaluation and prediction of mental and moral faculties

Current neuroimaging technology has been able to detect neural correlates of human attributes such as memory and morality. [13] [14] Neurodata can be used to diagnose and predict behavioral disorders and patterns such as psychopathy and antisocial behavior, both of which are factors in calculating likelihood of future criminal behavior. [15] [16] This ability to evaluate mental proficiencies, biases and faculties could be relevant to government or corporate entities for the purposes of surveillance or neuromarketing, especially if neurodata can be collected without the subjects' knowledge or consent. [17] Using neurodata to predict future behaviors and actions could help create or inform preventive measures to treat people before problems happen; however, this raises ethical issues as to how society defines "moral" or "acceptable" behavior. [16]

Lie detection

It is possible to use neuroimaging as a form of lie detection. By assuming deception requires an increase of cognitive processes to develop an alternate story, the difference in mental states between telling the truth or lying should be noticeable. [7] However, this relies on assumptions that have yet to be conclusively determined, and as such neurological lie detection is not yet reliable or fully understood. This is in contrast to the standard polygraph, which relies on analyzing biological mechanisms that are well understood but still not necessarily reliable. [18]

Applications of personal neurodata

The legal systems of most countries generally do not accept neuroimaging data as permissible evidence, with some exceptions. India has allowed BEOS tests as legal evidence, and an Italian court of appeals used neuroimaging evidence in a 2009 case, being the first European court to do so. [7] Canadian and US courts have been more cautious in permitting neuroimaging data as legal evidence. [18] One of the reasons legal systems have been slow to adopt neuroimaging data as an accepted form of evidence is the possible error and misinterpretations that could result from such a new technology; courts in the US typically follow the Daubert standard set for evidence evaluation by the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Supreme Court case, which established that the validity of scientific evidence must be determined by the trial judge. [9] The Daubert standard serves as a safeguard for the reliability of scientific evidence, and requires a significant amount of testing for any neuroimaging technique to be considered for it to be considered as evidence. While brain fingerprinting was technically accepted in the Harrington v. Iowa case, the judge specifically stated that the EEG evidence was not to be presented to a jury and so the evidence did not set a significant precedent. [7]

Surveillance and security

Neurological surveillance is relevant to governmental, corporate, academic and technological entities, as the improvement of technology increases the amount of information that can be extrapolated from neuroimaging. [19] Surveillance with current neuroimaging technology is considered difficult, given how fMRI data is difficult to collect and interpret even in laboratory settings; fMRI studies generally require subjects to be motionless and cooperative. [17] However, as technology improves it may be possible to overcome these requirements.

Hypothetically, there are benefits in using neuroscience in the context of surveillance and security. [4] However, there is debate over whether doing so would violate neuroprivacy to an unacceptable extent. [3] [20]

Neuromarketing

Neurodata is valuable to advertising and marketing entities by its potential to identify how and why people react to different stimuli in order to better influence consumers. [21] This ability to examine reactions and perceptions from the brain directly creates new ethical debates, such as how to define the acceptable limits of mental manipulation and how to avoid targeting vulnerable/receptive demographics. In a sense, these could be seen as not necessarily brand new debates but rather added dimensions to previously existing discussions.

Controversy and debate

Scientific arguments

The main scientific arguments regarding neuroprivacy mainly revolve around the limits to the current understanding of neurodata. Many of the arguments against using neuroimaging in legal, surveillance and other contexts are based on the lack of a solid scientific basis, meaning the potential for error and misinterpretation is too high. [9] Brain fingerprinting, one of the most popularized forms of neuroanalysis, has been promoted by its creator, Lawrence Farwell, despite a lack of scientific agreement on its reliability. [22] [23] [8] Currently, there is even a lack of scientific understanding as to what can be interpreted from neurodata, which makes limiting and categorizing different types of neurodata difficult and thus complicating neuroprivacy. [24] Another complication is that neurodata is highly personal and is essentially inseparable from the subject, making it extremely sensitive and difficult to anonymize.

Another issue is the conflation with scientific knowledge with beliefs regarding the relations between philosophical, neural and societal constructs. [3] Popularization and overconfidence in scientific techniques may lead to assumptions or misinterpretations of what neurodata actually describe, when in reality there are limits to what can be interpreted from correlations between neural activity and semantic meaning. [25]

There are various legal arguments as to how neuroprivacy is covered under current protections and rights and how future laws should be implemented to define and protect neuroprivacy, as neuroscience has the potential to significantly change the legal status quo. [7] The legal definition of neuroprivacy has yet to be properly established, but there appears to be a general consensus that a legal and ethical foundation for neuroprivacy rights should be established before neuroimaging becomes widely accepted across legal, corporate and security contexts. [19] [3] [18] [9] [24] [1] [13] [17] [4] As neuroprivacy constitutes an international issue, an international consensus may be required to establish the necessary legal and ethical foundation. [7]

Bringing neuroscience into legal contexts has been argued to have certain benefits. Current types of legal testimony, such as eyewitness testimony and polygraph testing, have significant flaws that may be possibly currently overlooked due to historical and traditional precedents. [26] [27] Neuroscience could potentially solve some of these issues by directly examining the brain, given scientific confidence in the neuroimaging techniques. [4] However, this raises questions concerning balancing legal usages of neuroscience with neuroprivacy protections. [17]

In the US, there are certain existing rights that could be interpreted to protect neuroprivacy. The Fifth Amendment, which protects citizens from self-incrimination, could be interpreted to protecting citizens from being incriminated by their own brain. [17] However, the current interpretation is that the Fifth Amendment protects citizens from self-incriminating testimony; if neuroimaging constitutes physical evidence instead of testimony, the Fifth Amendment may not protect against neuroimaging evidence. [20] The Ninth and Fourteenth amendments help protect unspecified rights and fair procedures, which may or may not include neuroprivacy to some extent. [17]

One interpretation of neuroimaging evidence is categorizing it as forensic evidence rather than scientific expert testimony; detecting memories and information of a crime could be compared to collecting forensic residue from a crime scene. This distinction would make it categorically different than a polygraph test, and increase its legal permissibility in Canadian and US legal systems. [18]

Ethical arguments

Some general ethical concerns regarding neuroprivacy revolve around personal rights and control over personal information. As technology improves, it is possible that collecting neurodata without consent or knowledge will be easier or more common in the future. One argument is that the collection of neurodata is a violation of both personal property and intellectual property, as the collection of neurodata involves scanning both the body and the analysis of thought. [20]

One of the main ethical controversies regarding neuroprivacy is related to the issue of free will, and the mind-body problem. A possible concern is the unknown extent to which neurodata can predict actions and thoughts - it is not currently known if the physical activity of the brain is conclusively or solely responsible for thoughts and actions. [28] Examining the brain as a way to prevent crimes or disorders before they manifest raises the question of if it is possible for people to exercise their agency despite their neurological condition. Even using neurodata in a way to treat certain disorders and diseases preemptively raises questions about identity, agency and how society defines morality. [15]


See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neuroscience</span> Scientific study of the nervous system

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system, its functions and disorders. It is a multidisciplinary science that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, psychology, physics, computer science, chemistry, medicine, statistics, and mathematical modeling to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons, glia and neural circuits. The understanding of the biological basis of learning, memory, behavior, perception, and consciousness has been described by Eric Kandel as the "epic challenge" of the biological sciences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Propranolol</span> Beta blocker drug

Propranolol, sold under the brand name Inderal among others, is a medication of the beta blocker class. It is used to treat high blood pressure, a number of types of irregular heart rate, thyrotoxicosis, capillary hemangiomas, performance anxiety, and essential tremors, as well to prevent migraine headaches, and to prevent further heart problems in those with angina or previous heart attacks. It can be taken orally or by intravenous injection. The formulation that is taken orally comes in short-acting and long-acting versions. Propranolol appears in the blood after 30 minutes and has a maximum effect between 60 and 90 minutes when taken orally.

In philosophy and neuroscience, neuroethics is the study of both the ethics of neuroscience and the neuroscience of ethics. The ethics of neuroscience concerns the ethical, legal and social impact of neuroscience, including the ways in which neurotechnology can be used to predict or alter human behavior and "the implications of our mechanistic understanding of brain function for society... integrating neuroscientific knowledge with ethical and social thought".

Brain fingerprinting is a scientific technique which uses brain waves from a electroencephalography (EEG) to determine whether specific information is stored in the subjects cognitive memory. Brain Fingerprinting does not detect or measure lies, stress, and emotion. It is detected through brainwaves that measure the neurological behavior of the human brain. Brain fingerprinting is determined through information present or information absent. It has statistically proven to have no false positives and no false negatives The technique involves presenting words, phrases, or pictures containing salient details about a crime or investigated situation on a computer screen, in a series with other, irrelevant stimuli. Although Brain Fingerprinting has been scientifically proven to work and has been used in legitimate investigations, the test results themselves can not be admitted as evidence. However, information or material that was discovered during the test can be used as evidence in a legal trial.

Neurotechnology encompasses any method or electronic device which interfaces with the nervous system to monitor or modulate neural activity.

Cognitive liberty, or the "right to mental self-determination", is the freedom of an individual to control their own mental processes, cognition, and consciousness. It has been argued to be both an extension of, and the principle underlying, the right to freedom of thought. Though a relatively recently defined concept, many theorists see cognitive liberty as being of increasing importance as technological advances in neuroscience allow for an ever-expanding ability to directly influence consciousness. Cognitive liberty is not a recognized right in any international human rights treaties, but has gained a limited level of recognition in the United States, and is argued to be the principle underlying a number of recognized rights.

Neuromarketing is a commercial marketing communication field that applies neuropsychology to market research, studying consumers' sensorimotor, cognitive, and affective responses to marketing stimuli. The potential benefits to marketers include more efficient and effective marketing campaigns and strategies, fewer product and campaign failures, and ultimately the manipulation of the real needs and wants of people to suit the needs and wants of marketing interests.

Brain-reading or thought identification uses the responses of multiple voxels in the brain evoked by stimulus then detected by fMRI in order to decode the original stimulus. Advances in research have made this possible by using human neuroimaging to decode a person's conscious experience based on non-invasive measurements of an individual's brain activity. Brain reading studies differ in the type of decoding employed, the target, and the decoding algorithms employed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neurolaw</span>

Neurolaw is a field of interdisciplinary study that explores the effects of discoveries in neuroscience on legal rules and standards. Drawing from neuroscience, philosophy, social psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and criminology, neurolaw practitioners seek to address not only the descriptive and predictive issues of how neuroscience is and will be used in the legal system, but also the normative issues of how neuroscience should and should not be used.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Core for Neuroethics</span>

The National Core for Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia was established in August 2007, with support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund, the Canada Research Chairs program, the UBC Brain Research Centre and the UBC Institute of Mental Health. Co-founded by Judy Illes and Peter Reiner, the Core studies neuroethics, with particular focus on ethics in neurodegenerative disease and regenerative medicine, international and cross-cultural challenges in brain research, neuroimaging and ethics, the neuroethics of enhancement, and personalized medicine.

Neurosecurity has been defined as "a version of computer science security principles and methods applied to neural engineering", or more fully, as "the protection of the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of neural devices from malicious parties with the goal of preserving the safety of a person’s neural mechanisms, neural computation, and free will". Simply put, Neurosecurity is, at least in principle, an antivirus and firewall for the mind. Neurosecurity also refers to the application of neuroscience to behavioral information security to better understand and improve users' security behaviors. Neurosecurity is a distinct concept from neuroethics; neurosecurity is effectively a way of enforcing a set of neuroethical principles for a neural device. Neurosecurity is also distinct from the application of neuroscience to national security, a topic that is addressed in Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense by Jonathan D. Moreno.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cordelia Fine</span> Canadian-born British psychologist and writer

Cordelia Fine is a Canadian-born British philosopher of science, psychologist, and writer. She is a full professor in the History and Philosophy of Science programme at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Fine has written three popular science books on the topics of social cognition, neuroscience, and the popular myths of sex differences. Her latest book, Testosterone Rex, won the Royal Society Science Book Prize, 2017. She has authored several academic book chapters and numerous academic publications. Fine is also noted for coining the term 'neurosexism'.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adrian Owen</span>

Adrian Mark Owen is a British neuroscientist and best-selling author. He is best known for his 2006 discovery, published in the journal Science, showing that some patients thought to be in a persistent vegetative state are in fact fully aware and able to communicate with the outside world using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). In the 2019 New Year Honours List, Owen was made an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE) for services to scientific research.

Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian, is professor of clinical neuropsychology at the department of psychiatry and Medical Research Council (MRC)/Wellcome Trust Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge. She is also an honorary clinical psychologist at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge. She has an international reputation in the fields of cognitive psychopharmacology, neuroethics, neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry and neuroimaging.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Center for Neurotechnology</span>

The Center for Neurotechnology (CNT) is an Engineering Research Center funded by the National Science Foundation to create devices to restore the body's capabilities for sensation and movement. The National Science Foundation has awarded the CNT $~30 million since 2011.

Neuroimaging intelligence testing concerns the use of neuroimaging techniques to evaluate human intelligence. Neuroimaging technology has advanced such that scientists hope to use neuroimaging increasingly for investigations of brain function related to IQ.

Daniel Langleben is a psychiatrist, professor, and scientific researcher. He pioneered a technique for using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as a means of lie detection. He has also studied the brain effects of packaging and advertising and how infants' cuteness motivates caretaking in adults.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">S. Matthew Liao</span> Taiwanese-born American philosopher

S. Matthew Liao is an American philosopher specializing in bioethics and normative ethics. He is internationally known for his work on topics including children’s rights and human rights, novel reproductive technologies, neuroethics, and the ethics of artificial intelligence. Liao currently holds the Arthur Zitrin Chair of Bioethics, and is the Director of the Center for Bioethics and Affiliated Professor in the Department of Philosophy at New York University. He has previously held appointments at Oxford, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, and Princeton.

Neurosexism is an alleged bias in the neuroscience of sex differences towards reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes. The term was coined by feminist scholar Cordelia Fine in a 2008 article and popularised by her 2010 book Delusions of Gender. The concept is now widely used by critics of the neuroscience of sex differences in neuroscience, neuroethics and philosophy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nita A. Farahany</span> American academic

Nita Farahany is an Iranian American author and distinguished professor and scholar on the ramifications of new technology on society, law, and ethics. She is the author of the critically acclaimed book, The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology. She currently teaches Law and philosophy at Duke University where she is the Robinson O. Everett Distinguished Professor of Law & Philosophy at Duke Law School, the founding director of the Duke Initiative for Science and Society as well as a chair of the Bioethics and Science Policy MA program. She is active on many committees, councils, and other groups within the law, emerging technology, and bioethics communities with a focus on technologies that have increasing potential to have ethical and legal issues. In 2010 she was appointed by President Obama to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

References

  1. 1 2 The Committee on Science and Law (2005). "Are Your Thoughts Your Own?: 'Neuroprivacy' and the Legal Implications of Brain Imaging" (PDF). The Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. 60 (2): 407–37.
  2. ↑ Vidal, Fernando (2015). "Historical and Ethical Perspectives of Modern Neuroimaging". Handbook of Neuroethics. pp. 535–550. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_27. ISBN   978-94-007-4706-7.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Littlefield, Melissa (29 April 2008). "Constructing the Organ of Deceit". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 34 (3): 365–392. doi:10.1177/0162243908328756. S2CID   144932944.
  4. 1 2 3 4 McCormick, Brian (2006). "Your Thoughts May Deceive You: The Constitutional Implications of Brain Fingerprinting Technology and How it May Be Used to Secure Our Skies". Law & Psychology Review. 30: 171–184.
  5. ↑ Brandom, Russell (2015-02-02). "Is 'brain fingerprinting' a breakthrough or a sham?". The Verge .
  6. 1 2 Farwell, Lawrence A.; Richardson, Drew C.; Richardson, Graham M. (5 December 2012). "Brain fingerprinting field studies comparing P300-MERMER and P300 brainwave responses in the detection of concealed information". Cognitive Neurodynamics. 7 (4): 263–299. doi:10.1007/s11571-012-9230-0. PMC   3713201 . PMID   23869200.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Church, Dominique J. (2012). "Neuroscience in the Courtroom: An International Concern". William & Mary Law Review. 53 (5): 1825–54.
  8. 1 2 3 Rosenfeld, J. Peter (11 March 2019). "P300 in detecting concealed information and deception: A review". Psychophysiology. 57 (7): e13362. doi:10.1111/psyp.13362. PMID   30859600. S2CID   75139733.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Gaudet, Lyn M. (2011). "Brain fingerprinting, scientific evidence, and Daubert: a cautionary lesson from India". Jurimetrics. 51 (3): 293–318. JSTOR   41307131.
  10. ↑ McGorrery, Paul (19 September 2017). "A further critique of brain fingerprinting: The possibility of propranolol usage by offenders". Alternative Law Journal. 42 (3): 216–220. doi:10.1177/1037969X17730204. S2CID   148737891.
  11. ↑ Elsey, James; Kindt, Merel (30 July 2018). "Can criminals use propranolol to erase crime-related memories? A response to McGorrery (2017)". Alternative Law Journal. 43 (2): 136–138. doi: 10.1177/1037969X18765204 .
  12. ↑ Pulice, Erin B. Pulice (2010). "The Right to Silence at Risk: Neuroscience-Based Lie Detection in the United Kingdom, India, and the United States" (PDF). George Washington International Law Review. 42 (4): 865–96.
  13. 1 2 Bzdok, Danilo; Groß, Dominik; Eickhoff, Simon B. (2015). "The Neurobiology of Moral Cognition: Relation to Theory of Mind, Empathy, and Mind-Wandering". Handbook of Neuroethics. pp. 127–148. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_161. ISBN   978-94-007-4706-7.
  14. ↑ Murty, Vishnu P.; Ritchey, Maureen; Adcock, R. Alison; LaBar, Kevin S. (March 2011). "Reprint of: fMRI studies of successful emotional memory encoding: A quantitative meta-analysis". Neuropsychologia. 49 (4): 695–705. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.031. PMID   21414466. S2CID   30117407.
  15. 1 2 Jotterand, Fabrice; Giordano, James (2015). "Real-Time Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Brain-Computer Interfacing in the Assessment and Treatment of Psychopathy: Potential and Challenges". Handbook of Neuroethics. pp. 763–781. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_43. ISBN   978-94-007-4706-7.
  16. 1 2 Glenn, Andrea L.; Focquaert, Farah; Raine, Adrian (2015). "Prediction of Antisocial Behavior". Handbook of Neuroethics. pp. 1689–1701. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_149. ISBN   978-94-007-4706-7.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Roskies, Adina L. (2015). "Mind Reading, Lie Detection, and Privacy". Handbook of Neuroethics. pp. 679–695. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_123. ISBN   978-94-007-4706-7.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Frederiksen, Soren (June 2011). "Brain fingerprint or lie detector: does Canada's polygraph jurisprudence apply to emerging forensic neuroscience technologies?". Information & Communications Technology Law. 20 (2): 115–132. doi:10.1080/13600834.2011.578930. S2CID   62189984.
  19. 1 2 Pearlman, Ellen (12 November 2015). "The brain as site-specific surveillant performative space". International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media. 11 (2): 219–234. doi:10.1080/14794713.2015.1084810. S2CID   147411962.
  20. 1 2 3 Moore, Adam D. (4 November 2016). "Privacy, Neuroscience, and Neuro-Surveillance". Res Publica. 23 (2): 159–177. doi:10.1007/s11158-016-9341-2. S2CID   147684655.
  21. ↑ Matthews, Steve (2015). "Neuromarketing: What is It and is It a Threat to Privacy?". Handbook of Neuroethics. pp. 1627–1645. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_154. ISBN   978-94-007-4706-7.
  22. ↑ Meijer, Ewout H.; Ben-Shakhar, Gershon; Verschuere, Bruno; Donchin, Emanuel (14 August 2012). "A comment on Farwell (2012): brain fingerprinting: a comprehensive tutorial review of detection of concealed information with event-related brain potentials". Cognitive Neurodynamics. 7 (2): 155–158. doi:10.1007/s11571-012-9217-x. PMC   3595430 . PMID   23493984.
  23. ↑ Farwell, Lawrence A.; Richardson, Drew C. (9 January 2013). "Brain fingerprinting: let's focus on the science—a reply to Meijer, Ben-Shakhar, Verschuere, and Donchin". Cognitive Neurodynamics. 7 (2): 159–166. doi:10.1007/s11571-012-9238-5. PMC   3595431 . PMID   23494087.
  24. 1 2 Hallinan, Dara; Schütz, Philip; Friedewald, Michael; De Hert, Paul (20 November 2013). "Neurodata and Neuroprivacy: Data Protection Outdated?". Surveillance & Society. 12 (1): 55–72. doi: 10.24908/ss.v12i1.4500 .
  25. ↑ Roskies, Adina L. (2015). "Neuroimaging Neuroethics: Introduction". Handbook of Neuroethics. pp. 659–663. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_34. ISBN   978-94-007-4706-7.
  26. ↑ Christianson, SA (September 1992). "Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: a critical review". Psychological Bulletin. 112 (2): 284–309. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.284. PMID   1454896.
  27. ↑ Proverbio, Alice Mado; La Mastra, Francesca; Zani, Alberto; Hills, Peter James (21 September 2016). "How Negative Social Bias Affects Memory for Faces: An Electrical Neuroimaging Study". PLOS ONE. 11 (9): e0162671. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1162671P. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162671 . PMC   5031436 . PMID   27655327.
  28. ↑ Reyna, Stephen (2015). "Free Will, Agency, and the Cultural, Reflexive Brain". Handbook of Neuroethics. pp. 323–342. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_138. ISBN   978-94-007-4706-7.
  29. ↑ Barrett, Brian. "The Real 'Westworld' Villain Has Always Been Its Privacy Policy". Wired. ISSN   1059-1028 . Retrieved 2023-08-11.
  30. ↑ Liu, Cixin. 2008. The Dark Forest. Tor Books.
  31. ↑ "Features - Wizarding World". www.wizardingworld.com. Retrieved 2023-08-11.
  32. ↑ "A helpful guide to Occlumency | Wizarding World". www.wizardingworld.com. Retrieved 2023-08-11.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.